What Social Science Does—and Doesn’t—Know: Our scientific ignorance of the human condition remains profound.
Here's the conclusion of the article:
Experiments are surely changing the way we conduct social science. The number of experiments reported in major social-science journals is growing rapidly across education, criminology, political science, economics, and other areas. In academic economics, several recent Nobel Prizes have been awarded to laboratory experimentalists, and leading indicators of future Nobelists are rife with researchers focused on RFTs.(HT: Hermonta Godwin)
It is tempting to argue that we are at the beginning of an experimental revolution in social science that will ultimately lead to unimaginable discoveries. But we should be skeptical of that argument. The experimental revolution is like a huge wave that has lost power as it has moved through topics of increasing complexity. Physics was entirely transformed. Therapeutic biology had higher causal density, but it could often rely on the assumption of uniform biological response to generalize findings reliably from randomized trials. The even higher causal densities in social sciences make generalization from even properly randomized experiments hazardous. It would likely require the reduction of social science to biology to accomplish a true revolution in our understanding of human society—and that remains, as yet, beyond the grasp of science.
At the moment, it is certain that we do not have anything remotely approaching a scientific understanding of human society. And the methods of experimental social science are not close to providing one within the foreseeable future. Science may someday allow us to predict human behavior comprehensively and reliably. Until then, we need to keep stumbling forward with trial-and-error learning as best we can.
"The first section of The Christian Delusion utterly, totally, and faithfully rests and cobbled together scraps from "the social sciences."
ReplyDeleteUtterly. and Totally Dependent on the Social Sciences.
... then... BLAM!!
"Our scientific ignorance of the human condition remains profound.
At the moment, it is certain that we do not have anything remotely approaching a scientific understanding of human society."
The first section of The Christian Delusion has just been blown to smithereens.
Next!
There is danger even in the "biological" studies. This becomes really obvious when I try to decide what (if any) supplements would help me avoid some problem. Additionally, it takes really large studies to credibly conclude any subtle improvement or worsening that might be caused by the substance being evaluated. Then there is the placebo effect which even with high dollar meds is often a major part of the improvement. Fortunately, the cost of the med tends to increase its placebo effect.
ReplyDeleteI can only expect that it would be even worse for the social sciences. The only positive thing is that sometimes there are really large amounts of data available (census for example).
Loftus said:
ReplyDelete---
So, let me get this straight Paul, just because the social sciences don't yet "have anything remotely approaching a scientific understanding of human society" we can dismiss what they do tell us about human society, eh? Until the social sciences "predict human behavior comprehensively and reliably" there is nothing at all we can learn from them, right Paul? Balderdash! Complete and utter foolishness.
---
That's right, in arguing that Christians denigrate reason and science, Loftus completely ignores reason and science, for here he has explicitly said you should listen to "social science" despite the lack of scientific procedure it has. Apparently, just having the label "science" attached is enough to make Loftus agree such a view is scientific.
So about that Creation science, John... Just because you'd say it doesn't "have anything remotely approaching a scientific understanding of" geology means "we can dismiss what they do tell us" about geology? BALDERDASH!
On the plus side for Loftus, William Spooner just emailed me and said "I appreciate Loftus's shining wit."
The problem for Loftus is that he and his cohorts pretended that the social sciences did "have something remotely approaching a scientific understanding of human society" So in his response to me Loftus had to deny the over-the-top and overreaching claims of the first section of TCD.
ReplyDeletePiece by piece, bit by bit, brick by brick, human knowledge, whether it be through physics, astronomy, cosmology, anthropology, psychology, neuroscience, sociology and the expansive range of other human investigative activities, are building a comprehensive, rigorous and consistent base of understanding of the human condition, one which has so many more melding aspects than those that are disjunctive, as to leave theology, astrology, alchemy in the dust of antiquity. And this has happened largely over the last little while. And it is exponentially growing. We must look to controlling the neolithic evolutionary traces of our brain if we are to further the well-being of humanity in embracing the future.
ReplyDeleteCheers
Papalinton,
ReplyDeleteDidn't you hear, "knowledge" and "well-being" get done away with too.
Cheerio